Why do a lot of gamers hate the Halo series?

I still don't understand why Halo receives so much hate and backlash. A lot of gamers on the internet are calling it "an average shooter" or "overhyped piece of media garbage!"

Then they bring up Goldeneye 007 as the defining light for console shooters. Really, Goldeneye 007? Sure the game was good for the consoles back in it's time but compared to Quake II which was released the same year the game was primitive. It wasn't even the first exclusive console FPS , Turok was released before Goldeneye 007 and that game wasn't great either. You might think that "goldeneye is teh best fps evah!' but take off the nostalgic goggles and you can see that the game has a boat load of flaws. The controls were so limited and jerky they feel awful compared to smooth PC shooter controls, you can barely even aim because the gunplay mechanics only rely on auto-aim which takes away the skill factor that's needed in the multiplayer. Sure you can go into aim mode but you can't move during the process which is a hassle. The A.I. is mentally retarded beyond all relief, one NPC walk passed me while I was in front of him, one NPC ran towards the grenade I threw, and they were too good of a shot because they shoot from a 25 mile distance with the **** of a weapon. Perfect Dark was nothing more than the same game with the same flaws but it was in a futuristic setting and offered gadgets.

Halo was the first console FPS done right and the first console shoot that holds up against most top tier PC first-person shooter {Now before someone calls me out on that; Half-Life series > Halo Trilogy}, it wasn't the first FPS to use dual analog controls {That crapp Alien Resurrection game was the first to use it} but if had the first good controls in a console FPS. You can move and aim in a proper speed , shoot with just right amount of auto-aim to shoot with a nice precision. The A.I. was impeccable; they fought like you were actually fighting real enemies.

Christ it bugs me that this trilogy gets so much backlash, why do so many gamers hate Halo despite its critical acclaim?

I don't know. Lots of different reasons.

One of the reasons may be that if you play halo like you're playing half life, the game is pretty boring, but then again it will be hard to advance too much. By that I mean just shooting... and shooting... like pretty much every fps out there. Halo added more useful melee and grenades which made it a lot of fun.

Goldeneye had a lot of fun gadgets in it, it also had hit detection so you could shoot hats off enemies, shoot them in the legs, shoot the gun from their hands, stuff like that. Plus you had to work to keep them from setting off the alarm. There were many cool elements that made Goldeneye an above-average shooter. The missions all had certain objectives that you had to work towards, beyond just getting through the level alive and killing as many baddies as you can. All the levels were intricate and well-designed. The guns were all fun to use. There is so much to like about Goldeneye.

What was so great about Quake II? I can't even remember the single player campaign, it was that uninteresting. The multiplayer provided loads of entertainment, but so did Goldeneye's. And Goldeneye was much better for parties where you had four people playing at a time.

Take off the nostalgic goggles from your precious Halo, and you'll see it did absolutely nothing new, the Flood were annoying, and the level design of most of the game was bland and full of constant recycling. I recall numerous times playing through a couple rooms repeated again and again to extend the length of the game. Total lazy development. My hate-on for Halo has to do with the first game entirely. It's constantly hyped up at being such a great game, but I liked Halo 2 a lot more. The level designs were actually interesting, and the game as a whole was much more entertaining. Switching between the Arbiter and Master Chief was pretty cool.

Halo was definitely not the first FPS done right.. how can you even say that? Just find a list of games released before Halo and you'll find tons of better games in there. In terms of console shooters, both Goldeneye and Turok 1 were miles ahead of it in terms of original gameplay and overall interesting game design.

Goldeneye had a lot of fun gadgets in it, it also had hit detection so you could shoot hats off enemies, shoot them in the legs, shoot the gun from their hands, stuff like that. Plus you had to work to keep them from setting off the alarm. There were many cool elements that made Goldeneye an above-average shooter. The missions all had certain objectives that you had to work towards, beyond just getting through the level alive and killing as many baddies as you can. All the levels were intricate and well-designed. The guns were all fun to use. There is so much to like about Goldeneye.

What was so great about Quake II? I can't even remember the single player campaign, it was that uninteresting. The multiplayer provided loads of entertainment, but so did Goldeneye's. And Goldeneye was much better for parties where you had four people playing at a time.

Take off the nostalgic goggles from your precious Halo, and you'll see it did absolutely nothing new, the Flood were annoying, and the level design of most of the game was bland and full of constant recycling. I recall numerous times playing through a couple rooms repeated again and again to extend the length of the game. Total lazy development. My hate-on for Halo has to do with the first game entirely. It's constantly hyped up at being such a great game, but I liked Halo 2 a lot more. The level designs were actually interesting, and the game as a whole was much more entertaining. Switching between the Arbiter and Master Chief was pretty cool.

Halo was definitely not the first FPS done right.. how can you even say that? Just find a list of games released before Halo and you'll find tons of better games in there. In terms of console shooters, both Goldeneye and Turok 1 were miles ahead of it in terms of original gameplay and overall interesting game design.

MyopicCanadian

Aw **** This comcast "high speed" internet sucks so much balls that it made forget to add the word console in my sentence "first FPS done right" I meant to say that Halo was the first FPS console done right. Now people won't understand what I meant to say!

I hate Comcast.

BTW, Halo > Goldeneye.

I still don't understand why Halo receives so much hate and backlash. A lot of gamers on the internet are calling it "an average shooter" or "overhyped piece of media garbage!"

Then they bring up Goldeneye 007 as the defining light for console shooters. Really, Goldeneye 007? Sure the game was good for the consoles back in it's time but compared to Quake II which was released the same year the game was primitive. It wasn't even the first exclusive console FPS , Turok was released before Goldeneye 007 and that game wasn't great either. You might think that "goldeneye is teh best fps evah!' but take off the nostalgic goggles and you can see that the game has a boat load of flaws. The controls were so limited and jerky they feel awful compared to smooth PC shooter controls, you can barely even aim because the gunplay mechanics only rely on auto-aim which takes away the skill factor that's needed in the multiplayer. Sure you can go into aim mode but you can't move during the process which is a hassle. The A.I. is mentally retarded beyond all relief, one NPC walk passed me while I was in front of him, one NPC ran towards the grenade I threw, and they were too good of a shot because they shoot from a 25 mile distance with the **** of a weapon. Perfect Dark was nothing more than the same game with the same flaws but it was in a futuristic setting and offered gadgets.

Halo was the first FPS done right and the first console shoot that holds up against most top tier PC first-person shooter {Now before someone calls me out on that; Half-Life series > Halo Trilogy}, it wasn't the first FPS to use dual analog controls {That crapp Alien Resurrection game was the first to use it} but if had the first good controls in a console FPS. You can move and aim in a proper speed , shoot with just right amount of auto-aim to shoot with a nice precision. The A.I. was impeccable; they fought like you were actually fighting real enemies.

Christ it bugs me that this trilogy gets so much backlash, why do so many gamers hate Halo despite its critical acclaim?

Goldeneye had a lot of fun gadgets in it, it also had hit detection so you could shoot hats off enemies, shoot them in the legs, shoot the gun from their hands, stuff like that. Plus you had to work to keep them from setting off the alarm. There were many cool elements that made Goldeneye an above-average shooter. The missions all had certain objectives that you had to work towards, beyond just getting through the level alive and killing as many baddies as you can. All the levels were intricate and well-designed. The guns were all fun to use. There is so much to like about Goldeneye.

What was so great about Quake II? I can't even remember the single player campaign, it was that uninteresting. The multiplayer provided loads of entertainment, but so did Goldeneye's. And Goldeneye was much better for parties where you had four people playing at a time.

Take off the nostalgic goggles from your precious Halo, and you'll see it did absolutely nothing new, the Flood were annoying, and the level design of most of the game was bland and full of constant recycling. I recall numerous times playing through a couple rooms repeated again and again to extend the length of the game. Total lazy development. My hate-on for Halo has to do with the first game entirely. It's constantly hyped up at being such a great game, but I liked Halo 2 a lot more. The level designs were actually interesting, and the game as a whole was much more entertaining. Switching between the Arbiter and Master Chief was pretty cool.

Halo was definitely not the first FPS done right.. how can you even say that? Just find a list of games released before Halo and you'll find tons of better games in there. In terms of console shooters, both Goldeneye and Turok 1 were miles ahead of it in terms of original gameplay and overall interesting game design.

MyopicCanadian

Goldeneye wasn't very good, the game takes no skill to play and the single player missions were hit or miss. Some missions were fun like the Facility and some were horrible like the Graveyard. The mission objectives that Goldeneye007 supposedly have brought were done before in System Shock and Bungie's Marathon. Halo isn't flawless, the indoor levels were repetitive and the Libary chapter is just as awful as Half-Life's Xen. The gameplay was good enough to overcome such flaws as with any other good game. I don't need nostalgic goggles in order to enjoy any game I like because I'm not for nostalgia anyway.

Plus, the Flood were intense enemies to fight. They were like the Hybrids {from System Shock 2} on steroids!

Goldeneye had a lot of fun gadgets in it, it also had hit detection so you could shoot hats off enemies, shoot them in the legs, shoot the gun from their hands, stuff like that. Plus you had to work to keep them from setting off the alarm. There were many cool elements that made Goldeneye an above-average shooter. The missions all had certain objectives that you had to work towards, beyond just getting through the level alive and killing as many baddies as you can. All the levels were intricate and well-designed. The guns were all fun to use. There is so much to like about Goldeneye.

What was so great about Quake II? I can't even remember the single player campaign, it was that uninteresting. The multiplayer provided loads of entertainment, but so did Goldeneye's. And Goldeneye was much better for parties where you had four people playing at a time.

Take off the nostalgic goggles from your precious Halo, and you'll see it did absolutely nothing new, the Flood were annoying, and the level design of most of the game was bland and full of constant recycling. I recall numerous times playing through a couple rooms repeated again and again to extend the length of the game. Total lazy development. My hate-on for Halo has to do with the first game entirely. It's constantly hyped up at being such a great game, but I liked Halo 2 a lot more. The level designs were actually interesting, and the game as a whole was much more entertaining. Switching between the Arbiter and Master Chief was pretty cool.

Halo was definitely not the first FPS done right.. how can you even say that? Just find a list of games released before Halo and you'll find tons of better games in there. In terms of console shooters, both Goldeneye and Turok 1 were miles ahead of it in terms of original gameplay and overall interesting game design.

It seems that the fan boys have push so many of us to distrust Halo, and every thing about it over time. Mainly due it it graphics, game-play, story, Ect.

I don't get it either, Halo is a great game, the first one was the best for single player, but Halo three for mutiplayer.

Halo is an classic for me,

But it seems only in a year time when CoD4 came out with it great graphics and mutiplayer hard core style, people started to bash halo just because they stop playing it.

Time will have an effect on every game eventually. Maybe when COD6 comes out and blows every one away, they could start bashing COD 4 down then.

who knows???

"The greatest game ever made" is nothing but another average, linear, repetitive shooter. It did nothing new and didn't even try to refine the genre for consoles. At least Goldeneye and Perfect Dark did some things for consoles that hadn't been done before on PC.foxhound_fox

Says the guy who rated Zone of the Enders a 9. Let's see what Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark was innovative for...hmm. Shoooting specific body parts on a enemies body inflict certain amount of damgage, cool!.... wait Chasm The Rift had body decapitation. Perfect Dark has co-op!.... wait Marathon 2 had that first. Goldeneye 007 had duel wielding!..... not wait I'm sorry Marathon did that first. Goldeneye 007's mission objectives?......hmm System Shock did that first.

Halo did have three innovative features; one button weapon melee attack, hot key grenade throw button, and recharging energy shield.

As it for being linear, well guess what? The Half-Life series and almost 95% of first-person shooters are linear so it's no real flaw or gripe.

As for it being repetitive, well Doom, Left 4 Dead, Quake, and 75% of first-person shooters are repetitive because first-person shooters are repetitive by nature. It's all about shooting, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying every shooter is repetitive, the Half-Life, System Shock, Deus Ex, and Marathon series offer variety styles of gameplay.

The Halo series did offer mission objectives that didn't revolve shooting the covenant.

Halo was never called "the greatest game ever" by anyone except by fanboys. Halo does have a huge rabid fan base but so does Nintendo and I love MOST of Nintendo's games.

No offense, but anyone who knew anything about Goldeneye disabled autoaim and used the secondary control scheme that plays almost identically to modern day shooter control schemes.

Goldeneye had a better singleplayer campaign than Halo. I'll stand behind that. The gadgets were interesting. The level design was more varied. And the cheat code speed runs were a thing of genius.

Halo was and is great, but Goldeneye was the first console FPS "done right."

i do not like these games there for people who are just bored and they really dont make any sense. Well if you want to argue youre point with me just message me.

No offense, but anyone who knew anything about Goldeneye disabled autoaim and used the secondary control scheme that plays almost identically to modern day shooter control schemes.

Goldeneye had a better singleplayer campaign than Halo. I'll stand behind that. The gadgets were interesting. The level design was more varied. And the cheat code speed runs were a thing of genius.

Halo was and is great, but Goldeneye was the first console FPS "done right."

dchan01

The controls were still sluggish and felt unnatural. I wasn't fond of Goldeneye's single player was a mixed bag, some mission were good but others were horrifically bad.

Halo Combat Evolved's and Halo 3's single player campaign are consistently fun except for Halo one's Libary and Halo 3's Cortana. Halo 2's campaign is meh.

Goldeneye 007's indoor levels are better than Halo Combat Evolved's indoor enviroments but Halo's outdoor enviroments beat anything Goldeneye 007 can dish out.

Says the guy who rated Zone of the Enders a 9. [...] Rest of post [...]g805ge

It seems to me that the only people that praise Halo are the younger generation. If you didnt expierence Quake, UT, and other great PC shooters then you wouldnt know any better. The game did almost nothing new and the multi-player is kinda bad. Uninspired map design and cheap,noob like game play. Is it fun? Yes but it is not nearly as great as many make it out to be.
GoldenElementXL

[QUOTE="g805ge"]Says the guy who rated Zone of the Enders a 9. [...] Rest of post [...]foxhound_fox

Halo isn't by all means revolutionary but there hasn't been a single revolutionary FPS since Jurassic Park Trespasser. Jurassic Park was a rushed piece of crap but it was more revolutionary than Half-Life and Doom combined. It changed the FPS genre and is responsible for Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, and Halo.

It did popularize the PC styel of the FPS genre to the mainstream audience since many Halo players who have not played a PC shooter before Halo have now started to play old and new PC shooters after playing Halo.

You either copy/pasted a Giant Bomb thread or you created the same topic here.

http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-3/61-9993/why-do-gamers-still-hate-halo/35-227213/#56

People hate Halo because they find it simplistic and not on par with most PC shooters. I find it enjoyable from time to time, but my focus is on single player, so games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock are more fun in my opinion.

You either copy/pasted a Giant Bomb thread or you created the same topic here.

http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-3/61-9993/why-do-gamers-still-hate-halo/35-227213/#56

People hate Halo because they find it simplistic and not on par with most PC shooters. I find it enjoyable from time to time, but my focus is on single player, so games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock are more fun in my opinion.

bigfatcrap

It was a watered down System Shock 2 in every conceivable way.

Halo Trilogy > BioShock

Now I'm going to get even more flame. Chris, I thought the users in the Escapist forum were bad.

e

People dislike Halo because of many reasons, fanboys, overhype(even personally I thought the first Halo didn't recieve "hype" at all), it is too simple, they don't like the style of gameplay or genre, or they just see it as a generic shooter. Personally I like Halo and it is one of a few games where I like playing with my friends but I do have other taste in games and I don't praise it like the second coming of Jesus. I do understand why people might look to it as a generic shooters because really, it is the simplicity is what draws most people to Halo. I know tons of people at my school who plays Halo, even a couple girls too. Sense it has a huge fanbase that means there would be many fanboys, who would scream to everybody "This is the best game ever!!!111" and this is what upset most people from my perspective. klusps

Here is something my friend wrote to counter point all of that.

Prior to Halo on XBox, I played dozens of PC FPS, things like Kingpin, Soldier Of Fortune, Shogo, Elite Force, Blood, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, Jedi Knight and Gunman: Chronicles (A much overlooked game I must say). I'd briefly played GoldenEye on my brothers N64 but not really enough to remember it that well.

I remembered Halo from when it was a third person PC title, and having just got into console gaming via Soul Calibur I picked up Halo along with an XBox a few days after it was released.

Over the next few months I completed Halo no less than six times, once on Co-Op, and I barely touched multiplayer. Even though I own both sequels I've still rarely played multiplayer.

It took me a while, but I've come to realise the reason why Halo was such a big deal for me, and it's precisely why it is considered dull and repetitive by a lot of people, especially predominantly PC gamers. In most FPS games you progressively get better weapons, and enemies get progressively harder, those games constantly push you to do new things and show you new sights and new challenges until the big confrontation at the end and then it's over.

Halo showed you most of the weapons and enemies within the first three levels, and with three levels left you have seen everything there is. Instead of relying on a constant stream of new weapons or harder enemies Halo limits both to only those that are strongly differentitated from each other. It lets you learn the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons and enemies and then builds on that, once you start to understand how best to deal with a particular enemy it doesn't remove it and replace it with another like a lot of FPS games, but it asks you to fight that enemy you understand as well as some new ones you don't. By the end of the game you can be fighting eight different types of enemies at once (4 types of Covenant, 3 types of Flood, and Sentinals), and you have to really understand how all those elements interaction in order to get through combat effectively.

Of course if you never really learn the differences between the weapons or the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies it just seems repeatitive as you're always fighting Elites and Grunts right through the game and until you get to the Flood nothing really different happens. If you do learn the deeper interactions you don't see it as fighting Elites again but as fighting Elites but this time with Jackels in support, and Hunters. Or Elites in a close environment, or Elites on vehicles. They are still Elites and everything you're learn about their behaviour and weakness still applies but the specifics have changed.

Precision aiming is never the priority in Halo, understanding the interactions of weapons and enemies is, but because of that the PC translation of Halo just feels wrong as it's nowhere near as precise as a straight PC FPS, but the game was nevered design for that to be the case.

Halo 2 suffered because it tried to be more like a PC FPS, it added elements like Boss Battles to make progression feel like you got something new and different. The problem was those Boss Battles never gave you a chance to learn how best to deal with them and subsequently apply that knowledge which is what Halo 1 had been all about. Fortunately Halo 3 limits those type of encounters and returns to the Halo 1 ****of being all about mastery of the gameplay systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RfMcpn0Cc

This guy tells the truth! Indeed more internet vermin are whiny morons!

*Big story*
g805ge

I read it though, and now that I look back at the half life 2 campaign I totally see his point even more.

Most of the game is spent getting increasingly more awesome weapons, and getting increasingly "epic" enemies. At the start you fight simple enemies, at the end you fight striders, gunships, giant ant lions, weird drones etc. While every new challenge is fun at the start, at the end of the game it just felt empty. You just pick the right weapon from your arsenal (which you'll have automatically), and fire away.

That's why I think half life 2's gameplay is less good halo's gameplay. Bungie always focused on making the fighting as fun as possible, the rest was less of an issue. Valve has focused on everything besides that pretty much, focusing on things to make the game more fun other than the basic fps stuff. I prefer halo in this case.

t[QUOTE="bigfatcrap"]

You either copy/pasted a Giant Bomb thread or you created the same topic here.

http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-3/61-9993/why-do-gamers-still-hate-halo/35-227213/#56

People hate Halo because they find it simplistic and not on par with most PC shooters. I find it enjoyable from time to time, but my focus is on single player, so games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock are more fun in my opinion.

g805ge

It was a watered down System Shock 2 in every conceivable way.

Halo Trilogy > BioShock

Now I'm going to get even more flame. Chris, I thought the users in the Escapist forum were bad.

I'm simply judging it by single player alone. Bioshock isn't my favorite game either. It's just that I don't own many FPS's. If I'm allowed to include third person shooters I would say

Freedom Fighters>Halo series. (Based on single player.)

[QUOTE="g805ge"]t[QUOTE="bigfatcrap"]

You either copy/pasted a Giant Bomb thread or you created the same topic here.

http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-3/61-9993/why-do-gamers-still-hate-halo/35-227213/#56

People hate Halo because they find it simplistic and not on par with most PC shooters. I find it enjoyable from time to time, but my focus is on single player, so games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock are more fun in my opinion.

bigfatcrap

It was a watered down System Shock 2 in every conceivable way.

Halo Trilogy > BioShock

Now I'm going to get even more flame. Chris, I thought the users in the Escapist forum were bad.

I'm simply judging it by single player alone. Bioshock isn't my favorite game either. It's just that I don't own many FPS's. If I'm allowed to include third person shooters I would say

Freedom Fighters>Halo series. (Based on single player.)

Don't compare Freedom Fighters to halo, Freedom Fighters is an third-person shooter but Halo is a first-person shooter. Freedom Fighters is a pretty awesome game though and that's one thing we can agree on.

Don't compare Freedom Fighters to halo, Freedom Fighters is an third-person shooter but Halo is a first-person shooter. Freedom Fighters is a pretty awesome game though and that's one thing we can agree on.

g805ge

Every popular game franchise has plenty of haters. The topic could be "Why do a lot of gamers hate (insert popular game title)" with pretty much any popular game. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, you'll find plenty of haters.UT_Wrestler

?[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Every popular game franchise has plenty of haters. The topic could be "Why do a lot of gamers hate (insert popular game title)" with pretty much any popular game. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, you'll find plenty of haters.g805ge

[QUOTE="g805ge"]?[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Every popular game franchise has plenty of haters. The topic could be "Why do a lot of gamers hate (insert popular game title)" with pretty much any popular game. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, you'll find plenty of haters.UT_Wrestler

I'm niether a MGS hater nor fan but I find the storylines in those games to be poorly written. They're not bad games.

?[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Every popular game franchise has plenty of haters. The topic could be "Why do a lot of gamers hate (insert popular game title)" with pretty much any popular game. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, you'll find plenty of haters.g805ge

't

[QUOTE="g805ge"]?[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Every popular game franchise has plenty of haters. The topic could be "Why do a lot of gamers hate (insert popular game title)" with pretty much any popular game. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, you'll find plenty of haters.bigd575

I have nothing against other people loving the MGS games and their storylines, I just can't get into them.

I'm not a fan of the first one. What the series brought was good AI that was fun to battle. 2 weapon system that became almost standard. Regenerating health which has become standard. Co-Op became a big thing for console shooters after Halo.Heavy vehicle use. Console gamers were deprived of good FPS. Those are all things that made the Halo series a hit with gamers.

The reasons it gets hate aside from "It's popular/overrated" crowd is because level repetitiveness. this problem was slowly fixed with no repetition in Halo 3. People prefer other shooters and Halo gets talked up so it pisses them off. Those are the only problems I can identify.

I'm not a fan of the first one. What the series brought was good AI that was fun to battle. 2 weapon system that became almost standard. Regenerating health which has become standard. Co-Op became a big thing for console shooters after Halo.Heavy vehicle use. Console gamers were deprived of good FPS. Those are all things that made the Halo series a hit with gamers.

The reasons it gets hate aside from "It's popular/overrated" crowd is because level repetitiveness. this problem was slowly fixed with no repetition in Halo 3. People prefer other shooters and Halo gets talked up so it pisses them off. Those are the only problems I can identify.

Nifty_Shark

Prior to Halo on XBox, I played dozens of PC FPS, things like Kingpin, Soldier Of Fortune, Shogo, Elite Force, Blood, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, Jedi Knight and Gunman: Chronicles (A much overlooked game I must say). I'd briefly played GoldenEye on my brothers N64 but not really enough to remember it that well.

I remembered Halo from when it was a third person PC title, and having just got into console gaming via Soul Calibur I picked up Halo along with an XBox a few days after it was released.

Over the next few months I completed Halo no less than six times, once on Co-Op, and I barely touched multiplayer. Even though I own both sequels I've still rarely played multiplayer.

It took me a while, but I've come to realise the reason why Halo was such a big deal for me, and it's precisely why it is considered dull and repetitive by a lot of people, especially predominantly PC gamers. In most FPS games you progressively get better weapons, and enemies get progressively harder, those games constantly push you to do new things and show you new sights and new challenges until the big confrontation at the end and then it's over.

Halo showed you most of the weapons and enemies within the first three levels, and with three levels left you have seen everything there is. Instead of relying on a constant stream of new weapons or harder enemies Halo limits both to only those that are strongly differentitated from each other. It lets you learn the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons and enemies and then builds on that, once you start to understand how best to deal with a particular enemy it doesn't remove it and replace it with another like a lot of FPS games, but it asks you to fight that enemy you understand as well as some new ones you don't. By the end of the game you can be fighting eight different types of enemies at once (4 types of Covenant, 3 types of Flood, and Sentinals), and you have to really understand how all those elements interaction in order to get through combat effectively.

Of course if you never really learn the differences between the weapons or the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies it just seems repeatitive as you're always fighting Elites and Grunts right through the game and until you get to the Flood nothing really different happens. If you do learn the deeper interactions you don't see it as fighting Elites again but as fighting Elites but this time with Jackels in support, and Hunters. Or Elites in a close environment, or Elites on vehicles. They are still Elites and everything you're learn about their behaviour and weakness still applies but the specifics have changed.

Precision aiming is never the priority in Halo, understanding the interactions of weapons and enemies is, but because of that the PC translation of Halo just feels wrong as it's nowhere near as precise as a straight PC FPS, but the game was nevered design for that to be the case.

Halo 2 suffered because it tried to be more like a PC FPS, it added elements like Boss Battles to make progression feel like you got something new and different. The problem was those Boss Battles never gave you a chance to learn how best to deal with them and subsequently apply that knowledge which is what Halo 1 had been all about. Fortunately Halo 3 limits those type of encounters and returns to the Halo 1 ****of being all about mastery of the gameplay systems.

Haha. Well my score of 8 is based on a shooter for the Wii. I stand my my statements.

Why do a lot of gamers hate the Halo series?g805ge

Because it's a series of forgettable, ho-hum, kiddy FPS games that caters exclusively to those of sub-normal Intelligence Quotiants. So... I suppose... people in general don't like this kind of thing. :roll:

Eh..I don't hate the series, although I didn't find the story or the campaign to be compelling in any way. In my opinion, the multiplayer is the only thing that made it reach the popularity it has now.viewtiful26

Haha. Well my score of 8 is based on a shooter for the Wii. I stand my my statements.

GoldenElementXL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FnKDRzZnSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RfMcpn0Cc